In U.S. v. Gauvin, 12 MJ 610 (NMCMR, 1981), the court explained that a person or his property
"may also be searched without probable cause while coming aboard a Navy ship docked in a foreign
port." The court also held that inspections of personnel as they boarded a Navy vessel in a domestic
port were also reasonable: "The need to keep drugs off Navy vessels is certainly as great as the need
to keep them off military shore installations. In addition, the need to maintain security, military fitness,
and good order and discipline is perhaps more important on a ship than it is on a military installation,
whether that ship is in a United States port or in foreign or international waters. Therefore, searches of
personnel and their property as they come aboard any Navy vessel, regardless of its location, should
also be permissible without probable cause as long as the person conducting the search has no
discretion as to how he will conduct it." Here, the person doing the inspection had simply been told to
inspect all packages brought aboard the ship: "He had no input into deciding who was searched, the
times the searches were conducted, the location of the searches, or the procedures to be followed if
something were discovered."
In U.S. v. Alleyne, 13 Mj 331 (CMA, 1982), the court dealt with an inspection of a vehicle that was
leaving Camp Carroll, Republic of Korea. The MP at the gate testified that his duties were "to check all
personnel coming in and going out Camp Carroll, including their baggage and any vehicle they're
driving out in, to check their glove compartments, under the seats, any baggage they had, and in their
trunks before they leave Camp Carroll." This was based on the fact that the installation commander
"has put out that all vehicles and persons and baggage that they carry will be searched before exiting
Camp Carroll." The court, again, compared this with an overseas border search: "When persons or
property enter the United States, they may be subjected to searches and seizures that under other
circumstances would not be reasonable...In connection with American military installations located
overseas, the rationale which supports customs searches and searches at border checkpoints fully
upholds the right of military authorities to search persons entering the post through a gate...Although
the military installation may not come under American sovereignty and usually is leased from the
foreign government, the distinction between the area within a military post located in a host country
overseas and the area located outside that installation is great enough to warrant the same treatment
that would apply at an international border." The court explained that it found in the border search
concept "ample authority for conducting a gate search of someone entering an overseas military
installation."
The court further held that it would not differentiate between an inspection of those entering the
installation, as opposed to those leaving it: "Thus, both incoming and outgoing border-crossing
searches have several features in common: (1) The government is interested in protecting some
interest of United States citizens, such as restriction of illicit international drug trade, (2) there is a
likelihood of smuggling attempts at the border, (3) there is difficulty in detecting drug smuggling, (4) the
individual is on notice that his privacy may be invaded when he crosses the border, and (5) he will be
searched only because of his membership in a morally neutral class." The court held that the
government "demonstrates that its interest in exit searches is as great as in entry searches." Indeed,
the "need to safeguard military property is particularly serious with the rise in use of tactical small arms.
Obviously, the problem is acute overseas, where there are concentrations of soldiers and hazardous
weaponry, both of which must be maintained in a state of readiness. Indeed, with the rise of highly
organized and sophisticated international terrorist organizations, host nations would have cause for
alarm and outrage should it be determined that the flow of tactical weapons and other military
equipment out of a post need not be closely guarded against."
MP1021
1-78
Previous Page
